It continues the
present confidential treatment for the photos, so
that only the police, the registered owner, and an
identified driver of the car, can look at them,
and requires
destruction of the photos after 6* months
(subsection (e)(3) of new Vehicle
Code Sec. 21455.5).

The provision for continued confidentiality of
the photos, and the new requirement for destruction
of the photos, will make it much more difficult for the
media, a citizens' group, or a website editor, to expose
improperly-run camera systems - and could limit the
reversal of improperly-issued tickets to those less than
6* months old.

*Note added 7-8-05: During the 2004
legislative session (after AB 1022 became law)
Assemblywoman Jenny Oropeza, the author of AB 1022,
introduced AB
517 in an attempt to change the 6-month period to 13
months. Evidently she had realized that the 6-month
period was too short. But AB 517 was vetoed by the
new governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. In a July 7,
2005 article (Political
Clout Pulls in Cash, by Robert Salladay) the LA
Times suggested that Gov. Schwarzenegger's veto decision
was influenced by heavy campaign contributions from ACS,
one of the leaders in the red light camera industry.
Had it not been vetoed, AB 517 also would have corrected a
typo. 21455.5(f) says "notwithstanding subdivision
(d)" when it should say "(e)". If you look at
the successive amendments to AB 1022, you can see where
the error occurred. The typo eventually was
corrected - seven (7) years later - by SB 1330 of 2010.

The "Shredding" Amendment
Added 7-18-03, updated 9-14-05:

In response to the public's concern about
the mandated destruction of all photos, on July
17, 2003 the authors made a very late amendment
to AB 1022, changing the destruction requirement
so that it does not apply to the photos that
have been kept by the court - just to the photos
kept by the police and the camera vendor.

The amendment
is worthless, and an insult to the public's
intelligence. Why?

The amended language
assumes the court will have been given a copy of
the ticket photos - since under AB 1022 the
vendor and the city will have destroyed their
copies.
But there's a catch - most of the time the
courts are not given a copy of the ticket
photos.

In most cities, when the police initially
file the tickets with the court, they don't
include the pictures. They send only
the written information, such as the
defendant's name and address, and the date,
time and place of the violation. The
rare courts that receive initial filings
complete with photos, have been provided
just small black and white "thumbnails."

And even when the ticket is contested and
the defendant takes it to a not guilty
trial, most often the photos do not become
part of the court file. Nowadays, most
cities use digital cameras, and the officer
uses his laptop to display the photos on a
screen. Unless the defendant insists
that a copy of the photos be made part of
the court record (and I have never seen a
defendant do so), the officer takes the
digital file back to his office (where it
will be destroyed, later), and there will be
no copy of the photos left in the court
file.

Sources of information: After the
July 17, 2003 amendment was made public, I
inquired with the court administrators at
three courthouses that handle large volumes of
tickets - Culver City, San Francisco, and
Beverly Hills (also handles West Hollywood
tickets). Culver City and Beverly Hills
courthouses receive no photos, unless the
ticket is contested. San Francisco
receives a black and white paper copy of all
citations, complete with approx. 2" x 2"
b&w copies of the photos. The San
Francisco court takes and archives a digital
image of the paper copy. No information
was available as to the number of pixels in
that digital image.
The cities noted above started their systems
with "wet film" cameras. In 2004 and
2005 I have watched numerous trials where the
tickets were produced by newer all-digital
systems, and the courtroom presentation of the
photos is "paperless," with no photo copies
(either on a CD, or printed out) placed in the
court file.

The auto club co-wrote (with Assemblywoman
Oropeza) Assembly Bill 1022, and is the sponsor.
The California State Sheriff's Association is a
registered supporter. The auto club's Sacramento
lobbyist explained that they based the bill upon
recommendations found in the July 2002 report by the
California State Auditor.

"Local
governments
also have differing interpretations of the
confidentiality of the photographs taken by red light
cameras. Six of the seven local governments in our
sample acknowledged that they have used or would use the
photographs for purposes other than enforcing red light
violations, such as investigating unrelated
crimes. According to our legal counsel, a literal
reading of the statute prohibits use of the photographs
for purposes other than to prosecute motorists for
running red lights. However, some jurisdictions
believe that other laws, as well as the California
Constitution, would permit the use of red light
photographs as evidence in a criminal prosecution."

My comment on the above
excerpt:

I believe that the "some
jurisdictions" mentioned in the last sentence above are
correct. The Truth in Evidence provision of the
California Constitution says: "Right to
Truth-in-Evidence. Except as provided by statute
hereafter enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership in each house of the
Legislature, relevant evidence shall not be excluded
in any criminal proceeding...."We passed Truth in Evidence (Prop. 8 of 1982)
because few of us would want a murderer to go free
because the only evidence against him was in a
"confidential" red light camera photo.(More about Truth in Evidence is on this page.)
On the other hand, fewer of us would want these red
light camera photos to be used to fill our mailbox with
citations for 5 miles over the limit, tailgating,
driving too slowly, using a hand-held cell phone,
no seat belt, headlights not on, broken taillights,
missing registration sticker, etc.
The present bill which attempts to provide "blanket"
confidentiality for all purposes, could actually have
the following result:
In a major criminal trial, the ticket photos could still
be used (Truth in Evidence would prevail),
in a minor criminal matter (tailgating, cell phones,
etc.) the ticket photos could still be used (Truth
in Evidence),
and in a civil action or investigation to get refunds
for tickets, the photos would be confidential (Truth in
Evidence applies only to criminal matters).
If the auto club's true motive was to protect the
motoring public from harassing minor criminal citations,
they should have written a bill that:
(1) included a prohibition of the use of the photos as
evidence in unrelated minor criminal matters,
(2) did not include any other prohibition of the use of
the photos, such as in other (major) criminal matters,
or civil matters,
(3) included a provision that the bill must pass with
the 2/3 vote required by Prop. 8.

Auditor's report, page 21:

"Our review found at
least two instances where vendors misused photographs
taken by red light cameras. In one instance, a
photograph that showed a bicyclist being struck by a
vehicle in San Francisco was posted in the hallway of
the San Diego Police Department. When we
questioned the San Francisco program manager about
this photograph, he was unaware that San Diego was
displaying it. He then investigated and found
that the vendor had not only released the information
to the San Diego Police Department but also allowed a
news reporter to see the photograph.
Subsequently, San Francisco notified the vendor that
it had breached the contract based on the provision in
the red light camera law requiring the confidentiality
of all photographs. San Francisco assessed the
vendor a penalty of $10,000 for the two violations and
directed the vendor to cure the breach by retrieving
all photographs it or its subcontractor had similarly
misused. Additionally, San Francisco indicated
that it would terminate the contract if the vendor
failed to deliver these photographs to the program
manager within 30 days or if the vendor made public
any photographs in the future. San Francisco's
actions seem appropriate and were aided by having a
well-written contract.

"In another instance,
a vendor's manual for an August 2000 training session
contained both photographs and personal data of
motorists running red lights taken by a red light
camera in Los Angeles. Attending this session were
staff from localities outside the county.
Although a county engineer indicates he was not aware
that the vendor had used these photographs in the
training manual, he believes that the law does not
prohibit their use for training because only staff
from other local governments attend the training
sessions. Nevertheless, the unauthorized use of
motorists' photographs, names, and addresses could be
construed as a violation of the legal requirement to
keep this information confidential. In addition,
none of the pages in the training manual were marked
as confidential. We do not believe that it is
necessary to include motorists' photographs, names,
and addresses on citations used to illustrate training
manuals and distributed to attendees of the
training. Unlike San Francisco's contract, the
Los Angeles contract does not have a strongly written
provision to require the vendor to keep motorists'
photographs and personal data confidential."

My comment:

As a motorist whose photo has been taken by a red light
camera, I am not very concerned that my photo might be
used in a training manual, or posted on the wall in the
San Diego Police Department. I think that after
the $10,000 penalty levied by San Francisco,
vendors will not need new legislation to make them much
more careful with the photos. The public should be
much more concerned that the veil of secrecy perpetuated
and expanded by AB 1022 will make it more likely that
cities that rig their camera systems will be able to get
away with it.

Auditor's report, page 23:

"Our review indicated
that vendors often retain the data for an unspecified
period, usually from 3 to 5 years, but do not indicate
why such a long retention period is necessary.
Specifically, vendors are retaining a significant
number of photographs well beyond the time their
legitimate use has ended. For example, San
Francisco was unable to identify the motorist involved
in the previously mentioned photograph of a bicyclist
being struck by a vehicle, indicating the citation was
not enforced. Had it been instructed to promptly
destroy all data relating to unenforced violations,
the vendor might not have misused this
photograph. It is therefore important to destroy
this data as soon as it is no longer needed."

My comment:

The fact that on one occasion a vendor passed an old
photo to another city's police department, doesn't
justify the premature shredding of all records,
Enron-style. If the auto club is sincerely
concerned that a vendor will again distribute an old
photo despite the risk of a $10,000 penalty, a more
appropriate law would provide that the vendor shall hand
its old records over to the client city for safekeeping
by the police department's records
supervisor. Police records departments house
large quantities of all kinds of sensitive records and
have, in general, a good record of keeping them from
being passed around the State. The law should also
provide that the records not be destroyed any sooner
than other criminal records retained by the police -
that retention period typically being a number of years,
not a number of months.

The "Shredding" Amendment
Added 7-18-03, updated 9-14-05:

(This box has been repeated, in case you
missed it!)

In response to the public's concern about the
mandated destruction of all photos, on July 17,
2003 the authors made a very late amendment to
AB 1022, changing the destruction requirement so
that it does not apply to the photos that have
been kept by the court - just to the photos kept
by the police and the camera vendor.

The amendment
is worthless, and an insult to the public's
intelligence. Why?

The amended language
assumes the court will have been given a copy of
the ticket photos - since under AB 1022 the
vendor and the city will have destroyed their
copies.
But there's a catch - most of the time the
courts are not given a copy of the ticket
photos.

In most cities, when the police initially
file the tickets with the court, they don't
include the pictures. They send only
the written information, such as the
defendant's name and address, and the date,
time and place of the violation. The
rare courts that receive initial filings
complete with photos, have been provided
just small black and white "thumbnails."

And even when the ticket is contested and
the defendant takes it to a not guilty
trial, most often the photos do not become
part of the court file. Nowadays, most
cities use digital cameras, and the officer
uses his laptop to display the photos on a
screen. Unless the defendant insists
that a copy of the photos be made part of
the court record (and I have never seen a
defendant do so), the officer takes the
digital file back to his office (where it
will be destroyed, later), and there will be
no copy of the photos left in the court
file.

Sources of information: After the
July 17, 2003 amendment was made public, I
inquired with the court administrators at
three courthouses that handle large volumes of
tickets - Culver City, San Francisco, and
Beverly Hills (also handles West Hollywood
tickets). Culver City and Beverly Hills
courthouses receive no photos, unless the
ticket is contested. San Francisco
receives a black and white paper copy of all
citations, complete with approx. 2" x 2"
b&w copies of the photos. The San
Francisco court takes and archives a digital
image of the paper copy. No information
was available as to the number of pixels in
that digital image.
The cities noted above started their systems
with "wet film" cameras. In 2004 and
2005 I have watched numerous trials where the
tickets were produced by newer all-digital
systems, and the courtroom presentation of the
photos is "paperless," with no photo copies
(either on a CD, or printed out) placed in the
court file.